Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules?

But... but... Assault weapons!! Sandyhook! Aurora! Orlando! Weapons of war! Military grade!!

 

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Besides, the rifles commonly sold in stores are not military grade. They can't burst or full auto.

 

It was aways for defense against a tyrannical government. Self defense, hunting, and target practice are by products of this right.

 

Why limit ourselves to those? I understand that guerilla warfare works but there's no rule that says "never use the same equipment as the enemy."

 

The revolutionary war.

 

When did this happen ? The SCOTUS already ruled that military weapons used by the Organized Militia can be owned and in possession of Americans under the Second Amendment.

United States v. Miller,(1939)

It was all about a sawed off shotgun.

Background history:

During WW l American soldiers and Marines would use shotguns clearing out German trenches. The Germans soldiers didn't like the Americans using shotguns on the battlefield so after WW l many of the pantywaist Europeans went to Geneva whining that shot guns weren't politically correct and under the Geneva Convention, shotguns became illegal on the battlefield.

Well U.S.Marines were never big fans of the Geneva Convention. U.S. Marines kill every thing they see on the battlefield using any thing and every thing at their disposal from rifles. machine guns, bayonets and K-Bars, artillery, naval gunfire and bombs from the air and also shot guns.

During WW ll Marines used shoguns and during the Vietnam War they used shot guns. In early 1966 the U.S. Army noticed the Marines using shotguns and the Army followed suit saying "**** the Geneva Convention."

Today the shotgun is part of the U.S. military arsenal but still in violation of the Geneva Convention.

FYI:
Under the U.S.Militia Law 10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: all American males at turning to the age of 17 become members of the militia, like it or not. If you don't own some kind of military style weapon that can be used on the battlefield you aren't in good standing and kinda un-American.

United States v. Miller:

Remember, back in 1939 there were no shotguns inside any militia or National Guard armories.

Any judge who rules differently is very likely a liberal activist judge who ignores the intent of the Constitution and legislates from the bench.

 

I wonder. Under which definition of "militia" do you fall?

 

Neither, I'm 61 but am available for the unorganized militia should Our country come under attack.

 

Similarly, a gun-type uranium nuclear bomb is just a propellant in a closed tube. So nukes are protected by the second amendment.

 

If it's similar to the 18th century nuke, yes.

 

Personally I don't own any AR rifles, I do have a Ruger mini 14 and mini 30, they do the same thing. I personally prefer a bolt action for anti-personnel situations. Currently I have never had to shoot anyone, but if a situation ever arises, I prefer a long range shot. I can currently and consistently put 3 shots at an average of 6 inch spread at 1000 yards.
By the time someone gets within range to put me in danger, I won't be there.

 

I don't think putting a small grouping together at 1000 yards does anything to predict how accurate you would be close in, on a moving target. That said, the Mini-14 is an all around excellent firearm, and I own one (an original from 1975), along with an AR that I built myself. Neither takes the place of a pistol for home/self defense, though.

 

By that standard, modern rifles aren't that similar to 18th century rifles, so they aren't protected.

 

I think it's ridiculous to assert that the 2A meant arms "at the time". The Founders had witnessed the previous 200 hundred years of firearms evolution, and knew darn well that they'd keep evolving to be better and more efficient. Nothing suggests that writers of the 2A meant to stifle ownership of firearms manufactured 100 or 200 years in to the future.

 

I want a 50mm fully auto mounted on my roof. I want a fully automatic Uzi. Maybe even a tank and a few cannons.

 

Why?

 

Agreed, but is that enough to compel you to work to use the law of the people to unify American state Citizens to alter or abolish this government destructive to unalienable rights?

 

I personally prefer the Flak-39, but hey, to each their own.

 

The previous 200 years of firearms evolution were barely anything.

 

Tell.all that to the people in New Orleans during flooding after the levies busted and the police left town.

 

Not true at all.

Our first examples of rifling, repeating actions, and breach loading weapons. Those are massive developments.

 

Rifling had been around for a long time even by the Revolutionary War. The breach loading and repeating mechanisms were wildly unreliable and arguably more dangerous to the user than the target.

99% of guns in 1792 were functionally identical to guns in 1592.

 

Then it would follow that as there were no cell phones or internet in the 18th century that they aren't protected by the Constitution regarding free speech.

 

Whenever I get the "Nobody needs an assault rifle to go hunting; limiting magazine capacity is common sense legislation, and if it saves the life of just one child it's worth it"
I reply by saying "Nobody needs a 200mph car or motorcycle to go to the supermarket; common sense legislation would be to limit the top speed of cars and motorcycles, and if it saves the life of just one child it's worth it"
When will you be writing to your representative and ask him why he isn't doing anything about the carnage on the roads?